Smt. B. Kalpana

IN THE COURT OF THE XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SMT. B. KALPANA,

IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 09 th DAY OF JULY, 2025

O.S. No.5273 of 2024

Between:

1) Aqheel Ali Baig S/o. Khader Ali Baig, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.19-3-543/5, Jahanuma, Hyderabad, T.S.

2) Syed Ali Yahya Bilal S/o. Syed Hussain, Shakeel, aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.19- 1-870/4/A/9/A, Ground Floor, Bandalguda, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, T.S. Represented by his GPA Holder,Aqheel Ali Baig S/o. Khader Ali Baig, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.19-3-543/5, Jahanuma, Hyderabad, T.S.

...Plaintiffs

AND

Mohd Yaseen Khan S/o. Saleem Khan, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.19-2-26/A/104/B/1, Chunney Ki Bhatti, Phool Bagh, Hyderabad, T.S.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M/s. Mohammed Riyazat Ali, learned counsel for plaintiffs and that of defendants were set exparte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs, praying this Court to grant

Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their relatives, associates, henchmen, anti-social elements, employees or servants, agents, workers or whosoever claiming through them from interfering or entering or dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties.

2.The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell are:

The plaintiffs submitted that Plaintiff No.1 is purchased the Southern

Portion of Property Bearing No.19-2-225/1, 210 Square Yards by way of registered Sale Deed, dated 30.07.2024, document No.2455/2024, registered at

SRO Doodhbowli, Hyderabad, (filed as document No.1) executed by Syed Ali

Yahya Bilal vendor of the Plaintiff No.1 as there was a mistake in the sale deed, regarding the door number the sale deed of property by mistake in the sale deed on Page Nos.2 and 3 the Door number was mentioned wrongly as 19-2- 285/1 instead of 19-2-225/1 and a Rectification Deed, dated 24.09.2024 was executed by the vendor, the Plaintiff which is registered as document

No.3074/2024, registered at SRO Doodhbowli, Hyderabad (filed as document

No.2).

The Plaintiff No.1 is purchased the Northern Portion of Property Bearing

No.19-2-225/1, 210 Square Yards by way of registered Sale Deed, dated 30.07.2024, document No.2456/2024, registered at SRO Doodhbowli,

Hyderabad, (filed as document No.3) executed by Syed Ali Yahya Bilal vendor of the Plaintiff No.1 as there was a mistake in the sale deed, regarding the door number the sale deed of property by mistake in the sale deed on Page Nos.2 and 3 the Door number was mentioned wrongly as 19-2-285/1 instead of 19-2- 225/1 and a Rectification Deed, dated 24.09.2024 was executed by the vendor, the Plaintiff which is registered as document No.3073/2024, registered at SRO

Doodhbowli, Hyderabad (filed as document No.4).

The Plaintiff No.1 is purchased the Middle Portion of Property Bearing

No.19-2-225/1, 210 Square Yards by way of registered Sale Deed, dated 30.07.2024, document No.2458/2024, registered at SRO Doodhbowli,

Hyderabad, (filed as document No.5) executed by Syed Ali Yahya Bilal vendor of the Plaintiff No.1 as there was a mistake in the sale deed, regarding the door number the sale deed of property by mistake in the sale deed on Page Nos.2 and 3 the Door number was mentioned wrongly as 19-2-285/1 instead of 19-2- 225/1 and a Rectification Deed, dated 24.09.2024 was executed by the vendor, the Plaintiff which is registered as document No.3075/2024, registered at SRO

Doodhbowli, Hyderabad (filed as document No.6).

The Plaintiff No.2 Syed Ali Yahya Bilal executed Irrevocable General

Power of Attorney, dated 30.07.2024 registered as document No.2457/2024 at

SRO Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad (filed as document No.7) in favour of the Plaintiff

No.1 Aqheel Ali Baig for the Portion of House No.19-2-225/1, admeasuring 200

Square Yards, Situated at Meer Sagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, hereinafter called as Schedule “B” Property a rectification deed, dated 31.08.2024 bearing document No.3076/2024 was registered at SRO Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad (filed as document No.8) for correct of Door Number 19-2-285/1 which is mention wrong in the Page No.2, 4 and plan of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney,

dated 30.07.2024, the door number was mentioned wrongly as 19-2-285/1, but

the correct door number is 19-2-225/1, thus the Plaintiff No.1 is the owner of 630 Square Yards, bearing door No.19-2-225/1, Situated at Meer Sagar,

Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, (hereinafter called as Schedule “A” Property) the

Plaintiff No.2 is owner and possessor of Door Number 19-2-225/1, admeasuring 200 Square Yards, Situated at Meer Sagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad (hereainfater called as Schedule “B” Property).

It is submitted that after the purchase of the suit schedule property admeasuring 630 Square Yards bearing Door No.19-2-225/1, Situated at Meer

Sagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, the GHMC Officials assessed the property tax in favour of the Plaintiff No.1 (filed as document No.10).

It is submitted that the after purchased of the suit schedule property admeasuring 630 Square Yards of Door No.19-2-225/1, Situated at Meer Sagar,

Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, the Plaintiff No.1 took the new electricity connection and he is paying the electricity bills to the Electricity department, the acknowledgment, dated 24.10.2024 is (filed as document No.11).

It is submitted that the Plaintiff No.1 is filing the statement of encumbrance certificate from 01.01.1983 to 30.09.2024 to show the transaction of the sale deeds and rectification deeds and the same is (filed as document

No.12).

It is submitted that the Plaintiff No.1 is in peaceful possession of the 630

Square Yards bearing Door No.19-2-225/1, Situated at Meer Sagar,

Bahadurpura, Hyderabad hereinafter called as Schedule “A” Property to show that he is in possession of the property he is filing the original photographs along with Pen Drive, original Newspaper, dated 24.10.2024 (filed as document

No.13).

It is submitted that the Plaintiff No.1 and he purchased the property suit schedule property from lawful owner of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the Plaintiff No.1 is in continuous in possession from the date of purchase of the suit Schedule “A” Property.

It is submitted that the Plaintiff No.2 and he acquired the property suit schedule property from lawful owner of the suit schedule property and thereafter the Plaintiff No.2 had executed the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of Plaintiff No.1. It is submitted that the Plaintiff No.1 is in continuous in possession from the date of purchase of the suit Schedule “B” Property.

It is submitted that the Defendants who has nothing to do with the suit schedule property are trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property the Defendants proclaiming that they have certain documents relating to the schedule property and trying to grab the valuable suit schedule property belonging to the Plaintiffs, when the Plaintiffs made hue and cry the passes by gathered near the schedule property seeing the said situation the

Plaintiffs and their henchmen left the site by threatening the Plaintiffs that they will once again come with greater force and grab the schedule property, the

Defendants once again on 28-10-2024 along with unsocial elements henchmen, and anti social elements at about 2:00 PM tried to trespass into the schedule property but when Plaintiffs and the neighbours who thwarted them by calling the rakshak team by seeing the rakshak vehicle the Defendants and their ment left the site threatening the plaintiffs that they will see how the Plaintiffs can maintain their possession for a long.

It is submitted that the Plaintiffs tried to lodge a complaint before the police, but the police officials inform the Plaintiffs that the matter is of civil nature and the Plaintiffs has to approached the civil court to get his redressal.

It is submitted that on 28.10.2024 the Defendants along with their henchmen trying interfere into the suit schedule properties and tried to grab the schedule of properties but the Plaintiffs registered their attempt and while the

Defendants were leaving the suit schedule properties threatened that they will come again with greater force and grab the suit schedule properties.

It is submitted that if the Defendants are successful in their attempt of the dispossession of the Plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties, the Plaintiffs will be put irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated by any cost. Hence this suit.

3. Summons were served on defendant, but they did not appear and there is no representation from any one. Defendant did not turn up for appearance and did not choose to contest the suit. Hence, the Defendants set Ex-parte.

Thereafter no petition was filed to set aside the Ex-parte order.

4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff’s GPA got himself examined as

PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 documents.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the documents.

6. Now the point for determination are:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

7. POINT No.1:- .

The plaintiff filed this suit for grant of perpetual injunction. When the plaintiff approached this Court seeking discretionary relief of perpetual injunction, burden lies on him to prove that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit.

Further it is also settled Principle of Law that in order to seek the discretionary relief of injunction, one must come to the Court with clean hands without suppressing the material facts. Further it is also settled law that, the plaintiff has to prove his case on his own and should not depend on the weaknesses in the

Defense of the defendant.

8.In order to substantiate her averments in the plaint, the plaintiff’s GPA himself got examined as PW-1 and the plaintiff got Ex’s. A1 to A10 documents.

PW.1 filed his affidavit in chief which is nothing but repetition of the entire contents of the plaint.

9.Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.A1 to A8, which shows that the

Plaintiff No.1 is purchased the Southern Portion of Property Bearing No.19-2- 225/1, 210 Square Yards by way of registered Sale Deed, dated 30.07.2024, document No.2455/2024, registered at SRO Doodhbowli, Hyderabad, (Vide

Ex.A1) executed by Syed Ali Yahya Bilal vendor of the Plaintiff No.1 as there was a mistake in the sale deed, regarding the door number the sale deed of property by mistake in the sale deed on Page Nos.2 and 3 the Door number was mentioned wrongly as 19-2-285/1 instead of 19-2-225/1 and a Rectification

Deed, dated 24.09.2024 was executed by the vendor, the Plaintiff which is registered as document No.3074/2024, registered at SRO Doodhbowli,

Hyderabad (vide Ex.A2).

Further shows that the Plaintiff No.1 is purchased the Northern Portion of

Property Bearing No.19-2-225/1, 210 Square Yards by way of registered Sale

Deed, dated 30.07.2024, document No.2456/2024, registered at SRO

Doodhbowli, Hyderabad, (vide Ex.A3) executed by Syed Ali Yahya Bilal vendor of the Plaintiff No.1 as there was a mistake in the sale deed, regarding the door number the sale deed of property by mistake in the sale deed on Page Nos.2 and 3 the Door number was mentioned wrongly as 19-2-285/1 instead of 19-2- 225/1 and a Rectification Deed, dated 24.09.2024 was executed by the vendor, the Plaintiff which is registered as document No.3073/2024, registered at SRO

Doodhbowli, Hyderabad (vide Ex.A4).

Further provesd that the Plaintiff No.1 is purchased the Middle Portion of

Property Bearing No.19-2-225/1, 210 Square Yards by way of registered Sale

Deed, dated 30.07.2024, document No.2458/2024, registered at SRO

Doodhbowli, Hyderabad, (vide Ex.A5) executed by Syed Ali Yahya Bilal vendor of the Plaintiff No.1 as there was a mistake in the sale deed, regarding the door number the sale deed of property by mistake in the sale deed on Page Nos.2 and 3 the Door number was mentioned wrongly as 19-2-285/1 instead of 19-2- 225/1 and a Rectification Deed, dated 24.09.2024 was executed by the vendor, the Plaintiff which is registered as document No.3075/2024, registered at SRO

Doodhbowli, Hyderabad (vide Ex.A6).The Plaintiff No.2 Syed Ali Yahya Bilal executed Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, dated 30.07.2024 registered as document No.2457/2024 at SRO Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad (Ex.A7) in favour of the Plaintiff No.1 Aqheel Ali Baig for the Portion of House No.19-2-225/1, admeasuring 200 Square Yards, Situated at Meer Sagar, Bahadurpura,

Hyderabad, hereinafter called as Schedule “B” Property a rectification deed,

dated 31.08.2024 bearing document No.3076/2024 was registered at SRO

Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad (Ex.A8) for correct of Door Number 19-2-285/1 which is mention wrong in the Page No.2, 4 and plan of Irrevocable General Power of

Attorney, dated 30.07.2024, the door number was mentioned wrongly as 19-2- 285/1, but the correct door number is 19-2-225/1, thus the Plaintiff No.1 is the owner of 630 Square Yards, bearing door No.19-2-225/1, Situated at Meer

Sagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, (hereinafter called as Schedule “A” Property) the Plaintiff No.2 is owner and possessor of Door Number 19-2-225/1, admeasuring 200 Square Yards, Situated at Meer Sagar, Bahadurpura,

Hyderabad (hereainfater called as Schedule “B” Property).

Further shows that the Plaintiff No.1 is in peaceful possession of the 630

Square Yards bearing Door No.19-2-225/1, Situated at Meer Sagar,

Bahadurpura, Hyderabad hereinafter called as Schedule “A” Property to shows that he is in possession of the property he is filing the original photographs along with Pen Drive, original Newspaper, dated 24.10.2024 (vide Ex.A9 and

A10).

10.The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex-A1 to A10, goes to show that the plaintiffs are the owner of the said property and the are in the possession of suit schedule properties. Considering the scope of this suit, as the plaintiffs has filed documents i.e., Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10 showing they are in possession as absolute owner in the suit properties, it establishes his case over the said possession as owner and defendant had remained exparte and neither he turn up to contest the suit nor has filed set aside petition to disprove the case of plaintiffs, as there is nothing put forth by the defendant to negate the said contention, as there is no contra evidence at this point, the evidence of PW1 remained intact and unrebutted. It is also pertinent to mention here, that the plaintiffs has proved his ownership by showing the strong prima facie case in their favour, that balance of convenience is tilting in their favour and that they will suffer irreparable/injury and loss if perpetual injunction is not granted. Hence this court opines that the plaintiff no.1 is the owner and possessor of the suit “A” property and the plaintiff no.2 is the owner and possessor of the suit “B” property and they are entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

11. POINT No.2:- To what relief?

IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiffs are decreed without

costs, in favour of plaintiffs against the defendant by granting Permanent

Injunction restraining the Defendants, their relatives, associates, henchmen, anti-social elements, employees or servants, agents, workers or whosoever claiming through them from interfering or entering or dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the suit schedule “A” and “B” properties, in the interest of justice.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 09 th day of July, 2025.

IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

For plaintiff

PW1 : Aqheel Ali Baig

For defendants:

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

CC Copy of Sale Deed, bearing document No.2455 of 2024, dated Ex.A1 30.07.2024

CC Copy of Rectification Deed, bearing document No.3074 of Ex.A2 2024, dated 24.09.2024

CC Copy of Sale Deed, bearing document No.2456 of 2024, dated Ex.A3 30.07.2024

CC Copy of Rectification Deed, bearing document No.3073 of Ex.A4 2024, dated 24.09.2024

CC Copy of Sale Deed, bearing document No.2458 of 2024, dated Ex.A5 30.07.2024

CC Copy of Rectification Deed, bearing document No.3075 of Ex.A6 2024, dated 24.09.2024

CC Copy of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, bearing Ex.A7 document No.2457 of 2024, dated 30.07.2024

CC Copy of Rectification Deed, bearing document No.3076 of Ex.A8 2024, dated 24.09.2024

CC Copy of Sale Deed, bearing document No.1546 of 1970 Dated Ex.A9 08.12.1970

Ex.A10Original Photographs, Pen Drive

Ex.A11Original Newspaper

Documents marked for defendants: Nil.

IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

O.S. No. 3289 of 2024 I.A. No. 336 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

Present: SMT. B. KALPANA,

IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Thursday, dated the 05th day of March, 2026

Interlocutory Application No. 336 of 2024

In

Original Suit No. 3289 of 2024

Between: Mr. Mohd. Ibadur Rehman, S/o. Mohd Qadeer Rehman, Age: 37 years, Occ: Private Service, at Damman, Saudia Arabia, Permanent R/o. H.No.11-3- 871, 2nd Floor, New Mallepally, Hyderabad.

Represented by his GPA holder Smt. Chand Sultana, W/o. Mohd. Qadeer Rehman, Age: 65 years, Occ: Landlady, R/o. 11-3-871, New Mallepally, Hyderabad. … Petitioner/ Plaintiff

AND

1. Mr. Mohammed Khaleeq Ahmed Khan alias Khaleeq Khan, S/o. Mohammed Azamath Khan, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 19-2-24/7/C, Ali Bagh Kalapather, Hyderabad.

C/o. Khan Medical Shop No.11-3-868/1, New Mallepally, Hyderabad.

2. Mr. Abdul Saheel Qureshi, S/o. Abdul Quadeer Qureshi, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, Khan Medical, Shop No. 11-3-868/1, New Mallepally, Hyderabad, R/o. H.No. 8-1-402/191, Seven tombs Road, Gulshan Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

3. The Assistant Director of Drugs Control Administration/Drug Inspector for Mehdipatnam Zone Office at Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad.

4. Mr. Abdul Waheed Khan, S/o. Late Abdul Hafeez Khan, R/o. H.No.11-3-870, New Mallepally, Hyderabad.

(Respondents No.3 & 4 are proforma party in the petition. No relief is claimed against them, and no notice is required to them)

... Respondents/ Defendants

This application is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M/s. R. Umender Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner/ plaintiff and of Sri. Mirza Baquer Ali Khan, learned advocate for respondent/ defendant No.1 and right to file counter was forfeited and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:

2

O.S. No. 3289 of 2024 I.A. No. 336 of 2024

O R D E R

1.This application is filed under Order XV-A read with Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’) to direct the respondent to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.2,90,048/- and also directing the respondents No.1 & 2 to pay future mesne profits @ Rs.50,000/- per month from August, 2024 in advance on or before 5th of every month till vacating the suit schedule property.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3.Brief averments of the application:- It is submitted that, respondent

No.1 & 2 admittedly obtained the suit schedule mulgi bearing No.11-3-868/1,

New Mallepally Hyderabad for running the Medical Hall in the year 2017 by executing a Rental Agreement, dt.09-08-2017 in favour of the petitioner and his brother, who were then Joint owners to run the Medical business in the name and style Khan Medical. The respondents No.1 & 2 also taken on lease the adjacent 3 Mulgies bearing No.11-3-870/1, 11-3-870/2 & 11-3-870/3, New

Mallepally Hyderabad, under separate tenancy with the respondent No.4. The present monthly rent for the suit mulgi is Rs.19,008/- excluding amenity and taxes w.e.f February, 2024 onwards. The last rent by enhancement payable was

Rs.17,600/- per month.

3.1.It is submitted that the respondent No.1 & 2 lastly paid the rent for the suit Mulgi in the Month of March 2023. Thereafter in spite of repeated demand made by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 & 2 failed to pay and discharge their obligation of paying the monthly rents thereby willfully Witholded the rents and committed willful default in payment of monthly rent w.e.f. April, 2023., till date.

3

O.S. No. 3289 of 2024 I.A. No. 336 of 2024

3.2.It is submitted that thereafter the petitioner got issued quit notice, dt.07- 05-2024 under section 104 of the T.P. and terminated the tenancy of the respondents No.1 & 2 and called upon them to vacate the suit Mulgi within 15 days from the date of receipt of the quit notice by clearing the arrears of rents.

3.3.It is submitted that further in the quit notice it was made clear to the respondents No.1 & 2 that there is no amount deposited by them towards advance security deposit and both the respondents No.1 & 2 are jointly liable to clear the arrears and vacate the premises as it was let out to both of them. The respondents No.1 & 2 have also violated the terms and conditions as agreed initially and caused damage to the suit property.

3.4.It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 received the notice addressed to him at Business address and the respondent No.2 received the notice addressed to him at both the addresses his residence and at business place, but failed to reply. Having received the notice, the respondent No.1 replied to the quit notice on 24-05-2024, and raised untenable pleas and claims which are all false. The respondent No.1 has falsely claimed proprietary ship of the business in the suit mulgi, while admitting the rental agreement dt.09-08- 2017 and further raised other untenable claims which are false and denied. The respondent No.1 has gone to the extent of claiming that the tenancy is extended for 10 years period on the same terms and conditions as made in the lapsed rental agreement, dt.09-08-2017. To cover up the wrongs and illegal acts the respondent No.1 has also falsely claimed the payments of amount of Advance security deposit and demand of amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the expansion of area as security deposit for construction of the western wall. A rejoinder notice dt.07-06-2024 was issued got by the petitioner clarifying the untenable pleas

4

O.S. No. 3289 of 2024 I.A. No. 336 of 2024

and claimed made in the reply notice, which was duly received by respondent

No.1 also by his counsel on 08-06-2024.

3.5.It is submitted that the respondent No.1 & 2 are liable to pay rents w.e.f

April, 2023 till July, 2024 to the tune of Rs.2,90,048/- excluding the charges of amenities and taxes. The arrears of rents of Rs.2,90,048/- are willfully not paid by the respondents No.1 & 2 in spite of demand made by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner got filed the suit against the respondents, making respondent

No.3 & 4 as proforma party and sought for decree of ejectment against the respondent No.1 & 2 and claimed arrears. The petitioner is entitle to claim future mesne profits for the use and illegal occupation of the suit premises after termination of tenancy. The respondent No.1 & 2 are chronic willful defaulter and cannot be allowed to enjoy the suit schedule property without depositing or paying the up to date arrears and also the future rents till the suit schedule property is vacated as per Order XV-A of CPC.

4.Brief averments of the counter of respondent No.1:- It is submitted that as per the rental agreement the initial rent was fixed Rs.8000/- per month and as per the recital thereof, it was also agreed to enhance the rent 8% per annum thereby the present rent with respective enhancement is now

Rs.14,807/- per month for the suit mulgi.

4.1.For better understanding, defendant No.1 has provided the following table outlining the rent schedule from the commencement of the rental agreement dt.09-08-2017 till date:

Rent fromRs.8,000/- 09.08.2017 to 08.07.2018 09.07.2018 to 08.06.2019Rs.8,640/- with 8% enhancement 09.06.2019 to 08.05.2020Rs.9,331/- with 8% enhancement

5

O.S. No. 3289 of 2024 I.A. No. 336 of 2024

09.05.2020 to 08.4.2021Rs.10,077/- with 8% enhancement 09.04.2021 to 08.03.2021Rs.10,883/- with 8% enhancement 09.03.2022 to 08.02.2023Rs.11,745/- with 8% enhancement 09.02.2023 to 08.01.2024Rs.12,695/- With 8% enhancement 09.1.2024 to 08.12.2024Rs.13,710/- with 8% enhancement 09.12.2024 to 08.12.2025Rs.14,807/- with 8% enhancement 4.2.It is further require to mention herein that the tenancy for the suit schedule mulgi was extended for another 10 years by the plaintiff and his brother who is also co-owner of the suit schedule mulgi who have not made as party to the suit as such the present petition is not maintainable.

4.3.It is submitted that respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 last paid the rent for the suit mulgi in March, 2023 is false and incorrect. In fact, respondent

No.2 ceased to be a part of the joint partnership business in January, 2021 and, since then, respondent No.1 has been the sole proprietor of the said medical shop. Further, the assertion that the plaintiff demanded rent from respondents

No.1 and 2 and that the respondents willfully withheld rent from April, 2023 is entirely baseless and untrue. It is submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff refused to accept the rent for May, 2023, whereupon respondent No.1 discharged his rental obligation by making the payment through demand draft No.020760, drawn on HDFC Bank, dt.16-05-2023, in favor of the petitioner/plaintiff, and sent the same via registered post.

4.4.Further, respondent No.1 duly remitted the rent for June, 2023 through a money order via the postal department. In light of the foregoing, the petitioner/plaintiff's allegations that respondent No.1 willfully withheld rent, failed

6

O.S. No. 3289 of 2024 I.A. No. 336 of 2024

to discharge his obligation to pay monthly rent, and committed willful default are false, baseless, and devoid of merit. The petitioner/plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof.

4.5.The respondent No.1 has also filed an interlocutory application in

OS.No.3372 of 2023 pending before this court for deposit of rent. Thereby

respondent No.1 /defendant No.1 never had such intention to avoid the payment of rents to the co-owners of the suit mulgi.

4.6.It is submitted that he never received any notice purportedly issued under

Section 104 of the T.P. Act, dt.07-05-2024, as claimed by the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that a quit notice was indeed received, and a suitable reply was given on his behalf. In that reply, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner and his co-owner of the suit Mulgi had received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards an advance security deposit further neither himself nor the respondent No.2 violated the terms and conditions as agreed and never caused any damaged to the suit Mulgi. The adverse allegations made in the said paragraph are false and baseless, and the petitioner/plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

4.7.It is admitted that the quit notice dated 07-05-2024, issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, has been served to him, thereby terminating the tenancy of respondent No.1 and No.2 and calling upon to vacate the suit mulgi within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

4.8.However, the said notice is contrary to the terms and conditions of the rental agreement dated 09-08-2017. As per the recitals of the said agreement, it was expressly agreed that either party shall provide a three-month advance notice before vacating the suit premises. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff has

7

O.S. No. 3289 of 2024 I.A. No. 336 of 2024

failed to grant sufficient time to Respondent/Defendant No.1 in accordance with the agreed terms.

4.9.It is submitted that the petitioner have no manner of right to file the present suit against the respondent nor can claim any relief against the respondent/defendant No.1 and 2 much less the prayed relief. Therefore the very petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

5.In the course of enquiry, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced by either sides.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the record. The point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of

arrears of rent as prayed?

7.Point:- The learned counsels have argued on the same lines as that of the application and counter respectively. The petitioner contended that the suit schedule mulgi bearing No.11-3-868/1, New Mallepally, Hyderabad was let out to respondent Nos.1 and 2 under a rental agreement dt.09-08-2017 for running a medical shop. It is further contended that the respondents committed wilful default in payment of rent from April, 2023 onwards and failed to discharge their obligation despite repeated demands. The petitioner has issued a quit notice dt.07-05-2024 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the respondents to vacate the premises and clear the arrears, but the respondents failed to comply.

The petitioner asserts that there is no advance/security deposit lying with him and that the respondents are jointly liable to pay arrears of rent amounting to

Rs.2,90,048/- from April, 2023 to July, 2024. Hence, the present application is filed seeking direction to deposit the said arrears and to pay future mesne profits. While admitting tenancy, the respondent disputes the rate of rent and contended that as per the rental agreement, the initial rent was Rs.8,000/- per month with annual enhancement of 8%, and accordingly the present rent is only

8

O.S. No. 3289 of 2024 I.A. No. 336 of 2024

Rs.14,807/- per month. It is contended that there is no wilful default and that the respondent had tendered rents through demand draft and money order, which were refused by the petitioner. The respondent further contended that respondent No.2 ceased to be partner from January, 2021 and is not liable. The respondent also asserts that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid towards advance/security deposit for reconstruction and expansion of the premises and the same has been suppressed by the petitioner. It is further contended that the quit notice is invalid as it is contrary to the terms of the rental agreement, which requires three months notice.

8.It is an admitted fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and that respondent No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property. The execution of the rental agreement dt.09-08-2017 is not in dispute. The petitioner alleged wilful default from April, 2023 and claims arrears at the rate of Rs.19,008/- per month, whereas the respondent disputes the said rate and contended that the present rent is only Rs.14,807/- per month as per agreed escalation. Thus, there exists a dispute regarding the quantum of rent, which cannot be conclusively decided at this interlocutory stage. The respondent has taken a plea that rents were tendered through demand draft and money order, which were refused by the petitioner. However, whether such tender amounts to valid payment is a matter to be established by evidence during trial. The contention regarding payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards security deposit and the denial of the same by the petitioner also give rise to disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication in the main suit. With regard to the quit notice, though there are inconsistent pleas taken by the respondent, the validity of such notice and its effect are matters to be decided during trial.

9

O.S. No. 3289 of 2024 I.A. No. 336 of 2024

9.However, it is not disputed that the respondent continues in possession of the premises. Even as per the respondent, rent is payable, though at a lesser rate. Therefore, the obligation to pay rent during pendency of the proceedings is clearly established. The object of Order XV-A CPC is to prevent a tenant from enjoying the premises without payment of rent during pendency of litigation. In view of the admitted tenancy and continued occupation, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to seek deposit of rent, subject to final adjudication of disputes regarding rate and arrears. The petitioner has made out a prima facie case for directing deposit of rent under Order XV-A CPC, though the rate of rent is to be taken on a reasonable basis pending trial.

10.IN THE RESULT, this application is allowed directing the respondents/ defendants No.1 & 2 to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.2,90,048/- within three month and continue to pay the future rents till disposal of the suit. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 05th day of March, 2026.

IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

- Nil -

IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

O.S. No.4444 of 2025 I.A. No.577 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 06 th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT: Smt. B. KALPANA

IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Interlocutory Application No.577 of 2025

In

Original Suit No.4444 of 2025

Between: M. Krishna, S/o. M. Swamy, Age: 48 years, Occ: Washerman, R/o. 12-2-517, Near Dhobi Ghat, Asifnagar Mandal, Guddi Malkapur, Hyderabad.

... Petitioner/ Plaintiff

AND

1. Dheeraj, S/o. Bangaraiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. H.No. 12-2-660/a, Gudi Malkapur, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

2. P. Mallesh, S/o. Bhumaiah, Age: 53 years, Occ: Govt servant (GHMC), R/o. 12-2-512, Gudi Malkapur, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

3. P. Srinivas, S/o. Sammaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. 12-2-523, Gudi Malkapur, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

4. G. Raju, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Age: 57 years, Occ: Not known to the plaintiff, R/o. 12-2-500/26, Gudi Malkapur, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. … Respondents/ Defendants

This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. M/s. B. Dhananjaya, learned advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff, and of Sri. M/s. K. Ravi Kishore, learned advocate for respondents/ defendants and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

1.This application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’) to restrain the respondent from interferiing with the peaceful possession over the petition schedule property till the disposal of the main suit.

2.For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

2

O.S. No.4444 of 2025 I.A. No.577 of 2025

3.Brief averments of the application:- It is submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the premises bearing No.12-2-517 situated at Gudi

Malkapur, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, admeasuring 131 sq.yds having obtained the same under registered Gift Settlement Deed, dt.16-8-2010 vide document

No.2928/2010, which is part of Sy.No.369 of the said locality.

3.1.It is submitted that, the Grand-Mother of the petitioner has been allotted the said property by the then Nizam in the year 1358 Fasli which is in Sy.

No.369 of Guddimalkapur Village and that she was paying taxes to the government. Subsequently thereto, upon her death the said property has been devolved upon the father of the petitioner who has gifted the property to the plaintiff, thus, the petitioner has become the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that, the petitioner has been paying the electricity and municipal taxes of the said premises.

3.2.It is submitted that, as the matter stood thus, the Government has tried to interfere with the possession of the entire area. Therefore, the writ petition was filed by the persons in possession thereto vide WP.No.8789/2004 before the

Hon'ble High Court and the same was allowed by Order dt.21-02-2025

whereunder the Hon'ble High court has held that the Government has no right over the entire premises in Sy No.369. It is relevant to state here that, the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the larger extent of survey No.369. The respondents who are parties to the writ petition, taking advantage of the orders passed therein are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the suit schedule property under that guise of the order the attempt was made on 22-06-2025 by the respondents has thwarted by the plaintiff. The respondents went away threatening the petitioner that they would dispossess the petitioner and take possession illegally. Thereafter, the respondents again on 20-9-2025 have interfered with peaceful possession of the petitioner over petition schedule

3

O.S. No.4444 of 2025 I.A. No.577 of 2025

property is illegal as they have no right, title or interest nor they are in possession of the same. Immediately thereto, the petitioner went to the concerned police station to lodge a complaint but the police refused to lodge the same. Thereupon, the petitioner went to the concerned Mandal Revenue Office to lodge a complaint before the Mandal Revenue Officer, who refused to entertain the same. Having no other alternative the petitioner is approaching this court for redressal.

3.3.It is submitted that, the respondents is trying to dispossess him from the petition schedule property and that he has made out Prima facie case and that the balance of convince is in his favour, as such interim injunction be granted in his favor and against the respondents, their assignees, Legal heir, representatives and persons claiming through or under them from interfering with his peaceful possession over the petition schedule property.

4.The brief averment of the counter of respondents :- It is submitted that though the petitioner/plaintiff has filed registered gift but it does not shows how his father obtained the said property and even other documents i.e., electricity bill and the property tax filed by the petitioner/plaintiff along with the main suit does not show that the petitioner/plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property or even that the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the defendant No.4 is in possession of the suit schedule property as the said suit schedule property belongs to him & his family only, as he inherited from his ancestors, hence the defendants denied the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff.

4.1.It is submitted that the Para no.4 is true to the extent that against the government a writ petition is been filed before the Hon'ble High Court vide

WP.No.8789/2004 and was allowed on dt.21-2-2025, and the order has stated

that the government has no right over the entire premises in sy.no.369. It is

4

O.S. No.4444 of 2025 I.A. No.577 of 2025

submitted that the Hon'ble Court also stated in its order that "in the result the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order dt.20-4-2004 passed in case no.B2/2440/2003, confirming the order passed by the RDO dt.6-3-2003". It is submitted that the order of RDO dt.6-3-2003 is "it declared that the petitioners (i.e., owners chakali Lachaiah, subsequently his legal heirs he petitioners in the

WP) are entitled for issuance of occupancy rights certificate in respect of the subject land vide its case no.B/849/2000". It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner/plaintiff is not a party to the WP and how he came to know of it he only knows.

4.2.It is submitted that the other allegations with regard to the incidents mentioned on 22-6-25 and 20-9-25 are absolutely false and cooked up story for the purpose of the case., when the possession of the suit schedule property is with the defendant No.4, no question arise that the defendants tried to dispossess the petitioner/plaintiff on any date as mentioned by him or any other date and he approaching the police station and then MRO are false and baseless.

4.3.It is submitted that one Chakali Lachaiah was granted Inam in respect of

Land to an extent of Ac 1.20 guntas in survey No.369 and Ac.0.22 guntas in survey No.370 of Gudimalkapur village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad dist. It is submitted that the defendant No.4 is the legal heirs and successors of Chakalli

Lachaiah, and as such they filed an application for occupancy right certificate in respect of the Inam lands and which was granted by RDO Hyderabad dist. after due enquiry by him on dt.06-03-2003 vide its case No.B/849/2000"., and since the time of his ancestral the defendant No.4 and family are in possession of the

Inam lands and till date it has not been partitioned or made into plots still the entire Ac 1.20 guntas is intact and as such the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the gift deed

5

O.S. No.4444 of 2025 I.A. No.577 of 2025

executed by his father is absolutely false and fabricated and concocted story and the documents are created for the purpose of the case.

4.4.It is made clear that the petitioner/plaintiff is not at all the owner of the suit schedule property and no incident of dispossessing him from the property taken place and hence no prima facie case is made out and in fact there is no cause of action also arise. It is further submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff is unknown to the defendants and he himself by creating documents filed this false suit against the defendants. It is pertinent to mention here that the

WA/560/2025 is still pending before the Hon'ble High court for the state of

Telangana with regard to the entire Inam land which included the suit schedule property.

5.In the course of enquiry, no oral evidence is adduced by either sides.

Ex.P1 to P3 are marked on behalf of petitioner.

6.Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. Perused the record. The point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of temporary

injuction restraining the respondent from interfering the

defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the petition schedule property as

prayed?

7.Point :- The learned counsels have argued on the same lines as that of the application and counter respectively. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered

Gift Settlement Deed dt.16-08-2010. In support of his claim, the petitioner relied upon Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the Gift Deed, and Ex.P1 and

Ex.P3 are the electricity bills and property tax demand bill respectively.

Ex.P2 prima facie discloses that the father of the petitioner executed a gift deed in his favour. However, the defendants have specifically disputed the

6

O.S. No.4444 of 2025 I.A. No.577 of 2025

title of the executant and contended that the suit property forms part of

Inam land in Survey No.369 originally granted to one Chakali Lachaiah and that defendant No.4, being his legal heir, obtained occupancy rights certificate from the RDO in proceedings dt.06-03-2003. Thus, the very root of title of the petitioner is seriously disputed, and the validity of the gift deed and the right of the executant to convey the property are matters which require detailed adjudication during trial. With regard to possession, the petitioner relied upon electricity bills and property tax demand bill under Ex.P1 and Ex.P3. Though these documents indicate payment of charges, it is well settled that such documents by themselves do not conclusively establish lawful possession or ownership. On the other hand, the defendants have categorically asserted that defendant No.4 is in possession of the suit schedule property as part of ancestral Inam land and that the entire extent has not been partitioned into plots. Thus, the question of possession is also seriously in dispute and cannot be decided conclusively at this interlocutory stage. The petitioner further relied upon the order in WP.No.8789 of 2004 to contend that the Government has no right over the land in Survey No.369. However, the defendants have clarified that the said proceedings relate to Inam land and that occupancy rights were granted to their predecessor, and further that WA.No.560 of 2025 is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, the said proceedings do not conclusively establish the petitioners exclusive right or possession over the suit schedule property. The allegations of interference on 22-06-2025 and 20-09- 2025 are also specifically denied by the defendants and no independent material is placed on record to substantiate the same at this stage. Thus, the claim of interference is also not free from doubt.

8.In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not established a clear prima facie case. The

7

O.S. No.4444 of 2025 I.A. No.577 of 2025

title and possession over the suit schedule property are seriously disputed questions which require full-fledged trial. Further, the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the petitioner, as granting injunction at this stage would amount to deciding disputed possession without evidence.

The petitioner also failed to establish that he would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted.

9.IN THE RESULT, this application is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 06th day of March, 2026.

IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court: Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PETITIONER RESPONDENTS

Ex.P1Electricity bill and receipt.- Nil - Ex.P2Certified copy of registered gift settlement deed vide document bearing No.2928/2010. Ex.P3Municipal tax bill.

IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF MAY, 2025

PRESENT : SMT B. KALPANA

IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

OS.No.3615 of 2023

Between :

MIR QUDRATH ALI

S/o Jahangir Mir Ali, Aged about 45 years, occ: Household R/o. H.No.8-2-618/A6/A/Z, Road No. 11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034 T.S.

...Plaintiff

AND

MOHAMMED ILYAS

S/o Mohammed Wasi, Aged about 50 years, occ: Business R/o.H.No:- Flat No. 402, Casa Shaila, H.No.8-2-618/A/Z, Road No.11 Banjara Hills Hyderabad- 500034,

...Defendant

* * *

This suit coming before me for final disposal in the presence of M/s. Shaik Abdul Aziz Bawazeer, Advocate for the Plaintiff and that of sole defendant was set exparte and the matter having been <<2 >> O.S.No.3615 of 2023 heard and stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for Eviction, arrears of rent and for Mesne profits.

The averments of the plaint in nutshell are:-

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of flat bearing no.402, casa Shaila Apartment, 8-2- 618/A/Z, Road no.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034, admeasuring 2220 SFT. The defendant approached the plaintiff to acquire the suit schedule property on rent for residential purpose for a period of eleven months and the plaintiff agreed to let out the same, as such the plaintiff and defendant had entered into the rental agreement dated 20.11.2021 for a period of eleven months commencing from 20.11.2021 to 20.10.2022, since then the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.88,000/- towards security deposit and agreed to pay <<3 >> O.S.No.3615 of 2023 monthly rent of Rs.44,000/- per month, excluding electricity, water and maintenance charges on or before 10th of every month from the date of entering into rental agreement. Further, the plaintiff and defendant agreed that the monthly rent shall be enhanced by 5% on completion of every year on the subsisting rent. The defendant violated the terms and conditions of agreement intentionally by neither paying the rent nor vacating the premises.

3.It is further averred that right from inception of the tenancy, the defendant had been erratic in paying the rents on one pretext or the other. The defendant used to dodge the payments and only on persistent requests and reminders, the defendant used to pay the rent to the plaintiff. Since the defendant is chronic and willful defaulter in payment of monthly rent and maintenance charges, the plaintiff had terminated the tenancy orally and gave notice to vacate the suit schedule property on expiry of the rental agreement, which expired on 20.11.2022. The defendant is willful defaulter from July 2022 to <<4 >> O.S.No.3615 of 2023

October 2022 @ Rs.44,000/- i.e., Rs.1,76,000/-, enhancement of

Rs.44,000/- is Rs.46,200/- from November 2022 to July 2023, i.e., (Rs.46,200 X 9 = 4,15,800/- total amounting to Rs.5,91,800/-) and for the past 13 months, defendant is neither paying the rent nor maintenance and electricity charges. As on date, the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,91,800/- towards rent, excluding maintenance, electricity and water consumption charges.

4.It is further submitted that the defendant with an intention to harass the plaintiff and to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff had totally damaged the suit schedule property and has not been maintaining the premises in a good condition. The defendant is also liable to pay the mesne profits of Rs.45,000/- per month from the date of filing of suit till the date of delivery of possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Despite several reminders, the defendant did not come forward to vacate or handover the keys of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff, as such the plaintiff got <<5 >> O.S.No.3615 of 2023 issued legal notice on 03.7.2023, under section 106 of The Transfer of Property Act, demanding the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the suit premises within seven days of receipt of notice, for which the defendant issued reply notice with baseless and concocted stories. The defendant is still using the premises illegally without consent of the plaintiff, further the plaintiff is in bonafide requirement of the suit schedule property for his personal occupation as such approached this court for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule premises. Hence the suit.

5.On receipt of the suit summons, Shri Mohd. Rafiuddin Kaleem,

Advocate filed vakalat on 25.09.2023 on behalf of the defendant but failed to file written statement till 26.12.2023, as such his right to file written statement was forfeited and the suit was posted for plaintiff’s evidence.

6.To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and

Exhibits A1 to A4 are marked.

<<6 >> O.S.No.3615 of 2023

7.Heard, learned counsel for the plaintiff, perused the material placed on record.

Now the point for determination is “ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property, for arrears of rent and mesne profits from the defendant as prayed for?”

POINT: Since the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of eviction, recovery of arrears of rent from the defendant, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he is entitled for the said relief against the defendant as prayed for. In this regard, as stated above, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1.

8.In order to substantiate his averments in the plaint, as stated above, plaintiff got himself examined as PW1. PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit with similar averments that are made in the plaint. In the evidence of PW1, Ex’s A1 to A4 are marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed vide document bearing no.1339 of <<7 >> O.S.No.3615 of 2023 2017 dated 08.01.2017. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff's counsel to the defendant dated 03.07.2023. Ex.A3 is the reply notice issued by defendant Counsel to the plaintiff dated 17.07.2023 and Ex.A4 is the original postal receipt dated 04.07.2023.

9.As per the orders in I.A.No.703/2024 is allowed and the

Judgment and Decree dated 27.08.2024 was set aside. Defendant failed to file written statement inspite of conditional orders, hence this court opines that the defendant is not interested to proceed with the suit, as such right to file written statement of Defendant was forfeited.

10.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by

PW1, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed under Ex.A1. Since the defendant is a willful defaulter of payment of rents from July 2022 till date, PW1 had issued legal notice under Ex.A2 under section 106 of The

Transfer of Property Act, calling upon the defendant to deliver the <<8 >> O.S.No.3615 of 2023 vacant possession of the suit schedule premises within seven days, by clearing the arrears of rent from July 2022 to July 2023, amounting to Rs.5,91,800/- apart from mesne profits of Rs.45,000/- from the date of receipt of the said notice. A reply notice was issued by the defendant under Ex.A3, denying the allegations made by the plaintiff.

11.On perusal of Ex.A3, the defendant has admitted the jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and also the quantum of rent. It is further admitted that he has not been paying the rent since few months due to his financial constraints and the same was informed to the plaintiff and further assured that he shall pay the arrears of rent and vacate the property within three months.

12.As per the averments of the plaint, the plaintiff is in bonafide requirement of the suit schedule property for his personal occupation, but the defendant, despite repeated reminders had neither cleared the arrears of rent nor vacated the suit schedule premises.

<<9 >> O.S.No.3615 of 2023

13.The testimony of PW1, both oral and documentary, remained unchallenged as the defendant failed to file written statement and his right was forfeited by this court. The evidence of PW1, the material on record and the admission of defendant in Ex.A3, clinchingly prove the case of the plaintiff. Further there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of defendant. Hence, this court is inclined to pass the judgment, directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises, by paying arrears of rent.

14.Though the plaintiff pleaded for mesne profits, the same cannot be decided in the present suit and a separate petition is required to be filed by the plaintiff under order XX rule 12 of CPC.

15.In the result, the suit is decreed in part, with cost as under:

(1) The defendant is directed to vacate the suit schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within (02) months from the date of this judgment.

<<10 >> O.S.No.3615 of 2023 (2) The defendant is directed to pay the arrears of rent of suit schedule property to the plaintiff @ Rs.44,000/- per month from July 2022 to October 2022 (Rs.44000/- x 4 = Rs.1,76,000/-) and 5% enhancement of Rs.44,000/- per month is Rs.46,200/- from November 2022 to July 2023 (Rs.46,200/- x 9 = Rs.4,15,800/-) total amounting to Rs.5,91,800/- within two months from the date of this judgment.

(3) The plaintiff is directed to file a separate petition under order XX rule 12 of CPC to ascertain mesne profits subject to payment of court fee.

(4) Further, if the defendant failed to vacate the suit schedule property and pay the arrears of rent, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to proceed against the defendant under due process of law.

Typed by the stenographer to my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 9th day of May,

2025.

IX Junior Civil Judge, FAC XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad.

<<11 >> O.S.No.3615 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Witnesses examined: For plaintiff For defendant: PW1 : Mir Qudrath Ali Nil

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : certified copy of sale deed vide document bearing no.1339 of 2017 dated 08.01.2017.

Ex.A2 : office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff's counsel to the defendant dated 03.07.2023.

Ex.A3 : reply notice issued by defendant Counsel to the plaintiff

dated 17.07.2023.

Ex.A4 : original postal receipt dated 04.07.2023.

Documents marked for defendant: Nil.

IX Junior Civil Judge, FAC XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad.

O.S. No.3756 of 2023 I.A. No.986 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

Present: SMT. B. KALPANA,

IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Tuesday, dated the 24th day of February, 2026

Interlocutory Application No. 986 of 2023

In

Original Suit No. 3756 of 2023

Between: M. Ranjitha Bai, W/o. M. Rohith Singh, Age: 38 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. 13-6-347/D/3, Ramsinghpura, Karwan, Hyderabad.

... Petitioner/ Plaintiff

AND

1. Malkapuri Kishan Singh, S/o. Late Malkapuri Uday Singh, Age: 53 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. 1-1-264, Street No.1, Chikkadpally, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. T Akkubai, D/o. Late Malkapur Uday Singh, W/o. Late T Narayan Singh, Age: 54 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.13-6-411/2, Karwan, Hyderabad.

3. Smt. Godha Vijaya, W/o. Sri Godha Venkateshwarlu Goud, Age: 49 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 13-6-455/119, Heera Nagar, Karwan, Hyderabad.

4. The Office of Sub Registrar, Golconda, Hyderabad. … Respondents/ Defendants

This application is coming before me for final hearing, in the presence of Sri. M/s. C. Sri Ram, learned advocate for thepetitioner/ plaintiff, ofSri. B. Gopala Krishna,learned advocate for respondents/defendants No.2 & 3 and of Sri. K. Mohan, learned advocate for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following;

O R D E R

2

O.S. No.3756 of 2023 I.A. No.986 of 2023

1.This petition is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’) to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.3 from alienating or creating any third party in and over the petition schedule property, till disposal of the main suit.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3.Brief averments of the application:- It is submitted that the daughter of respondent/defendant No.2. It is submitted that her father and husband of respondent/defendant No.2 by name Late T. Narayan Singh purchased the property bearing H.No.13-6-830/A/9 admeasuring 300

Sq.Yds situated at Ram Singh Pura Karwan, Hyderabad, from his lawful owners. After purchase the property her father constructed a building and assessed in his name before the GHMC.

3.1.It is submitted that her father leased-out the property to C.

Satyanarayana to run a Bar & Restaurant in property bearing No.13-6- 830/A/9. It is submitted that, her father i.e., T. Narayan Singh died on 30- 07-2021. After death of her father there is a dispute between the family members i.e., she and respondent/defendant No.2 and Purnima Bai, elder daughter of respondent/defendant No.2 regarding the properties of the Late T. Narayan Singh.

3.2.It is submitted that the respondent/defendant No.2 and her elder daughter by name Purnima Bai not settled the dispute between her,

Mother Akkubai and Purnima bai. She lodged the Application before

3

O.S. No.3756 of 2023 I.A. No.986 of 2023

Kachi Sangh, Ram Singh Pura, Karwan, Hyderabad, for settlement of dispute regarding properties. The Kachi Sangh tried their level best but the respondent/defendant No.2 and elder daughter by name Purnima Bai not come forward to settle the issues regarding the properties of Late T.

Narayan Singh.

3.3.It is submitted that she tried her level best but not settling the matter, she filed a suit against the respondent/defendant no.2 and Smt.

Purnima bai for partition and separate possession for A to D schedule of properties before the Hon'ble IX Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad in IA.No.745 of 2022 in OS.No.227 of 2022. The Hon'ble

Court granted the Status Quo order for not to alienate the suit properties and the said order is still subsisting. It is submitted that the property as mentioned in the document No.5782 of 2022 and 5783 of 2022, dt.08.09.2022 is the same house property bearing No.13-6-830/A/9, situated at Ram Singh Pura, Karwan, Hyderabad, which is 'D' schedule property in the suit in OS.No.227 of 2022.

3.4.It is submitted that, the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 created a fictitious and fraudulent document to defraud her right over the property which is originally purchased by her father and created house numbers i.e.,13-6-830/A/18/3andH.No.13-6-830/A/18/4,the respondents/defendants No.1 and 2 in collusion with each other alienated the petition schedule property in favour of the respondent/defendant No.3 while the matter stood thus she initiated a suit against the respondents/defendants No.1, 2 & 4 for not to alienate the suit schedule

4

O.S. No.3756 of 2023 I.A. No.986 of 2023

property i.e., House bearing No.13-6-830/A/18/3 situated at Ramsingpura

Karwan, Hyderabad.

3.5.It is submitted that, on 25-07-2023 she came to know that the respondent/defendant No.4 after set exparte in the said suit, he deliberately executed the registered Sale Deed vide document

No.3499/2023 on 23-06-2023 in favour of the respondent/defendant No.3 in collusion with the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2. Hence the petition.

4.Brief averments of counter of respondent :- It is submitted that the present suit filed for mere declaration without seeking further relief is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Moreover the petitioner had filed a suit for partition and separate possession with metes and bounds against the respondents No.2 and her elder sister Smt. S.

Purnima Bai, and wherein the petitioner had failed to include the suit schedule property in the partition suit as such the present suit is hit by

Order II Rule 2 of CPC and the present suit is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself.

4.1.It is submitted that the respondent No.3 is not party to the suit in

OS.No.227/2022 ending on the file of IX Addl Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad and OS.1371/2023 pending on the file of this Court.

Moreover the petition schedule property is not the subject matter of the partition suit in OS.No.227/2022 as such any order pass in the said suit are not binding on this respondent and even otherwise the suit is liable to be rejected as the same is hit by order II rule 2 of CPC.

5

O.S. No.3756 of 2023 I.A. No.986 of 2023

5.In the course of enquiry, no oral evidence is adduced by either sides. Ex.P1 to P3 and Ex.R1 to R7 are marked in their respectively.

6.Perused the record. The point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of

temporary injunction restraining defendant no.3

from alienating or creating any third party over

the suit schedule property as prayed ?

POINT :- The learned counsels have argued on the same lines as that of the application and counter respectively. The suit is filed for declaration. The petitioner has relied on Ex.P1 to P3 are marked where Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed vide document bearing

No.3499 of 2023, dt.23.06.2023, Ex.P2 is the certified copy of docket order in IA.No.745 of 2022 in OS.No.227 of 2022 and Ex.P3 is the encumbrance certificate.

7.The petitioner contended that the petition schedule property originally belonged to her father Late T. Narayan Singh, who purchased the property bearing H.No.13-6-830/A/9 admeasuring 300

Sq.Yds situated at Ramsinghpura, Karwan, Hyderabad. After purchase, he constructed a building and the same was assessed in his name before the GHMC. It is further contended that after the death of her father on 30-07-2021, disputes arose between the family members regarding the said property. According to the petitioner, respondents No.1 and 2 created fictitious documents and in collusion with respondent No.3 executed a registered sale deed vide document

No.3499/2023, dt.23-06-2023 in favour of respondent No.3.

6

O.S. No.3756 of 2023 I.A. No.986 of 2023

8.It is contended that the petitioner suppressed material facts and that respondent No.3 is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. It is further contended that the petitioner has no exclusive right over the property and that the suit is not maintainable.

9.The respondents, in support of their possession, produced

Ex.R1 is the certified copy of gift settlement deed vide document bearing No.4059/20009, dt.18.12.2009, Ex.R2 is the property tax receipt, Ex.R3 is the property tax receipt, Ex.R4 and R5 are the electricity bills, Ex.R6 is the property tax payment receipt, and Ex.R7 is the encumbrance certificate.

10.Ex.P1 shows that the property was purchased the father of the petitioner. However, the said document by itself does not establish the exclusive right or possession of the petitioner over the property, particularly when the dispute relates to succession among legal heirs of the said Narayan Singh.

11.Ex.P3 reflects the entries relating to the property including the registration of sale deed vide document No.3499/2023 dated 23-06- 2023. The said document indicates that the property was transferred through a registered instrument in favour of respondent No.3. The legality or validity of the said transaction is a matter to be decided during trial.

12.On the other hand, the respondents relied upon Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 are relied upon by the respondents to show their possession and

7

O.S. No.3756 of 2023 I.A. No.986 of 2023

enjoyment of the property. Though such documents do not by themselves confer title, they are relevant to show prima facie possession.

13.Ex.R7 also reflects the transactions relating to the property and supports the contention of the respondents regarding the existence of registered transactions.

14.From the evidence, it is clear that both parties are claiming rights over the property based on different documents and the matter involves serious dispute regarding title and possession. Such disputed questions cannot be finally adjudicated at the interlocutory stage and require detailed examination during trial.

15.Therefore, the evidence placed on record at this stage does not conclusively establish exclusive right or possession of the petitioner over the petition schedule property.

16.IN THE RESULT, this application is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on the 24th day of February, 2026.

IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

Ex.P1 Certified copy of saleEx.R1Certified copy of gift deed vide documentsettlement deed vide bearing No.3499 of 2023,documentbearing dt.23.06.2023.No.4059/20009, dt.18.12.2009.

8

O.S. No.3756 of 2023 I.A. No.986 of 2023

Ex.P2 Certified copy of docketEx.R2Property tax receipt. order in IA.No.745 of 2022 in OS.No.227 of 2022.

Ex.P3 Encumbrance certificate.Ex.R3Property tax receipt.

Ex.R4Electricity bill.

Ex.R5Electricity bill.

Ex.R6Property tax payment receipt.

Ex.R7

Encumbrance certificate.

IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.